Charles Taylor; Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Maybe..

On July 14th former President of Liberia Charles Taylor took to a seat to defend himself from Charges of "war crimes" and other "crimes against humanity." A trial set by the Special Court of Sierra Leon (SCSL), held at the Hague. Mr. Taylor, before the trial started (on January 7th 2008) and until now still maintains his innocence (as many defendants in such cases usually do). I have just a few thoughts on this trial and of the man in general but perhaps it is important for those who do not know very much about the case to give just a brief background on the case and on International Law (what I dub IL) in general.

Just briefly on why there is a "Special Court" at all to begin with. International Law has come a long way, from the pre-world war II era where the only major actors at the IL stage were States, hence, sovereignty was the rule of the day..along with Sovereignty came state immunity (which still exists by the way), along with State immunity comes Sovereign immunity, i.e. one State cannot prosecute another State or State representative for a crime (quite different with civil cases which is not at all the case at hand, maybe we shall discuss international civil law later). Essentially, things (as they usually do with the evolution of reason) began to change post-world war II. The War was vital I would say in helping humanity see how far human cruelty can extend. A major reason being the fact that war was not as primitive as it used to be, now there is such things as mas weapons, extremely destructive machinery designed to cause nothing more than mass extermination and human grief.

The Nuremberg trails post war offered the first most realistic trial against State officials for crimes committed while in office, such crimes (now known as war crimes and crimes against humanity are now stipulated in the Geneva Conventions). The veil of Sovereignty could no longer be used as an excuse (or at least it seemed)...More and more advocates of "equality, fair treatment, and the ban on the use of force" came forward, and in the early 50's and onwards these advocates seemed more to be newly independent States vying for equal status on the world stage, this was mostly evident in the signing of and ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties where a clause in it stipulated that no treaty would override a peremptory norm or "jus cogens" (a norm which is of universal application, e.g. banning of torture) such a treaty would be void...believe it or not these new independent States with the help of the Soviet Union really fought hard for such status (as at that time it was in their vital interest). So since then of course, not only have peremptory norms been held to higher a standard, (many say they are in fact the highest source of IL) but anyone who violates them are subject to be prosecuted on the international scene. An area which received more attention was the law related to conduct during war and the treatment of civilians especially during these times..bringing with it those human right norms and the striking down (at least for the most part) the veil of sovereignty. Through these laws, individuals have been elevated as key players on the international stage, depending on what kind of individual you are this could be a great deal or something extremely annoying (tell that to Charles Taylor). Coming with this is the notion of "individual criminal responsibility" which holds those responsible for these crimes to account, there is no longer a protection of the State behind the individual. The Rwandan and former Yugoslav trials, paved way for what is now the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, and later after the atrocities during the Sierra Leonian war the Special Court of Sierra Leon was created, a hybrid court designed to mix local and international law to try perpetrators of those atrocities.

So we fast forward to Taylor, he was arrested in 2006 by Nigerian security forces while trying to cross the border (during his exile in Nigeria...the cheek of him). He did this knowing that there had been an indictment in 2003 by the SCSL, charging the former leader with "Crimes against humanity and war crimes." Anyway, he was handed over to the Sierra Leonian court but later upon several debates transferred to the Hague upon fears that his presence in Sierra Leon would cause security issues.

The crimes he faces include:

• Five counts of war crimes: terrorizing civilians, murder, outrages on personal dignity, cruel treatment, and looting;

• Five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape, sexual slavery, mutilating and beating, and enslavement; and

• One count of other serious violations of international humanitarian law: recruiting and using child soldiers.

Now you are wondering how ONE person could have possibly committed all these crimes, well see this is the exciting thing about international criminal law, in that, the person who actually committed the crime need not be the one on trial (although he/she could) but his superiors who actually ordered those crimes are held to be as criminally responsible as the principle perpetrators, that is, without those direct controls (especially in a military settings) such crimes may not ( or may) have been committed, basically no head of State can get away for ordering genocide for instance, even though he played no part in the actual killings..Novel is it not? Hmm..not really

The evidence against Taylor in my view is quit solid. According to the prosecutor, he was responsible for planning, instigating and and ordering them and he even went further in aiding and abetting by supplying the weapons needed by the Rebels in Sierra Leon to commit those crimes. There is strong evidence that Taylor had strong ties with the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) who was allied with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a force in Sierra Leon whose leaders have also been indicted by the Court. In 2003, a shoot-out occurred after the indictment between Liberian forces (Taylor's) and the RUF which killed its leader Bockarie, evidence points to the fact that Taylor needed him "gone" after all he would probably testify against him later on...hmmm. "Why the hell is Taylor meddling in Sierra Leonian affairs" you might as, does the word DIAMOND ring a bell ??

The prosecution so far has brought 91 witnesses, no less victims in themselves who have experienced anything from rape to mutilation and professionals who have brought their own evidence from Sierra Leon. It has been incumbent on the prosecution not just to show that atrocities occurred but also the vital link between those forces who committed the atrocities and Taylor, like any criminal case, this vital link needs to be proven without any reasonable doubt, unfortunately for the prosecution the witnesses linking forces with Taylor were far less than those showcasing the trauma victims went through. But is this a bad thing? After all "quantity is not quality," for it seems the prosecution is trying to prove that Taylor's relationship with Sankoh leader of RUF started long before Taylor became president at a meeting in Lybia in the 80's, where they both professed their undying love for each other..just kidding, but at least there is evidence that they did at an early stage promise to help each other, of which it seems Taylor kept up his half of the bargain. One stick in the mud though is that there is no evidence of Taylor actually having been to Sierra Leon, but then again in modern times communications might prove enough to establish responsibility.

So anyway, he (Taylor) decides to take to the stage and profess his innocence by stating that he has always been a "humanitarian" (not in his exact words but "all my life trying to pursue justice" does not fall far from the tree). He claimed he was rather a "peace-maker," he would have been superman to try to control Liberia and Sierra Leon at the same time...hmm, I beg to differ, Hitler was no super man and he controlled many European States (of course this was before his demise). Moreover, diamond money can surely get someone to feel like superman, so frankly I don't buy it. And I wonder why he spends his time saying that he tried to fix the war torn country (Sierra Leon) when his own country was no better (at the time) than Sierra Leon, I guess the old saying "take the stick out of your own eye before you point to another's" was not resounding in his ears during his "humanitarian" days.

Despite my obvious disdain for the guy, as they say "one is innocent until proven guilty." This means that I am willing to indulge his defence of "these are lies" "these are lies," although, if I was his lawyer, I would plead with him to either not speak or quit saying that the prosecution is lying as his ONLY evidence, for that can only take one so far, legally it means jack (or jill whichever rocks your boat). So while I do not (and oh how I wish I did) have all the evidence in front of me, I will trust in the positive role that the special court is playing in restoring some level of justice to people whose lives have been all but taken away without any apologies.

For those who wing and whine, with the usual "why are westerners after African leaders?" (with my response being blah blah blah), I say to them refer back to my earlier brief but hopefully concise history of this kind of International Law. It was advocated for by us, yes us, our leaders on the verge of independence advocated for this kind of justice..and no, it is not a shame that those that kill, torture, maim, rape, commit genocide are brought to justice, what is a shame is that we even have to debate about it. If Charles Taylor is innocent and if there is apparently no evidence against him, then I am sure that he will be exonerated, if not then oh well, he will await his fate, but to do nothing at all proves nothing, we are not a people who lavish in the glory of injustice. Let us not forget that the Special Court for Sierra Leon bares its name because it is commissioned by the Sierra Leonian people and governed mainly by the law of Sierra Leon with the help of International criminal proceedings. So all the nay sayers of justice, I say to you...well, I actually have not much to say to you.

At this point all I have to say is, when the heck are we going to have Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, my skin is itching from the long wait.